Okay. All right. It's 2 o'clock on April 10th, 2025. We will call the meeting to order. My name is Ryan Knight, and I am a special magistrate for the city. The procedures of this hearing are that due process is emphasized to each respondent and to the city in accordance with Florida statute 162.0.7 subsection 3, which states formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed, and shall govern the proceedings. Here say is admissible, but only to support other competent substantial evidence. Any decision made today may be appealed by sending notice of appeal to the circuit court within 30 days of execution of any order. The City of Edgelwater will present its case first as it has a burden of proof. Afterwards, our respondents will have an opportunity to respond. Please call the first case. Or actually, do you swear the people in or do I do that? Okay, if there's anybody that will be giving testimony, please rise and raise your right hand. If you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. First case, case number 24-00001-1-8. Good afternoon. My name is Myron Sammigal. I serve as the Code Supervisor for City of Edgewater. This is going to be ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and address is 135 Jenkins Street, suite 105 B, box 351, St. Augustine, Florida 32086. This case originally opened up in November of 2024, due to a call that came in from central dispatch in regards to some dogs fighting and attacking each other. Upon arrival, the dogs were found loose and running at large. We were able to get them secured and speak to the tenant, excuse me, who lives at this property. They rent, and these dogs have had a history, unfortunately, of getting out often. And they had severely injured one of the animals. And speaking to the renter at the time. He stated that the dog of injury only had superficial wounds. Unfortunately, those wounds were actually life threatening and he ended up oner surrendering that dog to the Indian River Animal Clinic where the dog was subsequently had to be euthanized. So we've had a history here with challenges with animal problems becoming public nuisance, part of our process with animal control in coming on to cases like this is to ensure that all the animals are up to date with rabies that they're spayed and neutered and that they're coming into full compliance with all of code regulations within the city due to the fact that the dogs were not vaccinated or up to date with I'm spaying and neutering that is the course of action that we followed through with it took them a very long time to do that So much so that the property owner had to issue them a seven-day notice to be evicted if they don't come into full compliance with that Unfortunately the some of the dogs were re-homed outside of city limits. So that was kind of part of their recommendation to come into compliance. And that is what they chose to do. They were waiting on the one dog to receive the paperwork for updated rabies vaccines. Everything else had come into compliance by the end date before this magistrate hearing. However, beyond the deadline given of the notice of violation. All notices sent to the property were sent certified and posted on the property at the time, as well as given to the property owner with confirmation from him. That's the renter, Mr. Van Cleefef has come into again full compliance with the spain neuter and the rabies so at this time we would just request a finding effect that they were beyond the date of the notice of violation given and the citation has since been paid so beyond that if it happens again we would consider them a repeat offender for having animals without the complot proper compliance. Okay so at this point there's no request for a fine of 250 per day because they are in compliance and obviously the animal is fader neutered. Correct. Is there anybody here for the respondent? No sir. So there's nobody present. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in case number 24-0010181A, we'll find that there is, that respondent is in violation of City of edgewater city code section 5-3-7. As listed in the notice of violation filed in this matter, consider the gravity of the violation and the actions by the violator to correct the violation in any previous violations by the violator. Respondent has paid the citation, but after the date given for the notice of compliance. So there will be no fine and post today, however the record will reflect that there was a finding of effect that Section 537, 5-37 was was violated. If there's any future violations, it could be subject to repeat violations and repeat offender. Has there been an affidavit of compliance filed for this case? Yes, sir. There's affidavit for the notices. And then the other thing Mr. Knight is that believe because if there was multiple counts of this, given multiple dogs, I think there's a A, B, and a C, right, Ms. Cemadal? Andy. So if that record could just reflect that for all four of us. Sure. I was sort of unclear, was there one dog that hasn't been spayed or neutered? There was up until recently so that dog has now since been spayed and neutered with evidence provided that it was finalized. Okay, so yes that will apply to cases A, B, C and D under the same case number as far as the binding effect and the order goes Anything else for these cases nothing further from the city So next case is case number 25-121813 three. Good afternoon. one, two, one, eight, one, three. Good afternoon. Officer Hayeswood, City of Edgewater Code Enforcement. The case you're hearing is QOZB2 LLC, which is the owners of property located at 1525 South Ridge with Avenue Edgewater, Florida. Been found in violation of section 10500 minimum standardsum Standards of the City of Edgewater's Code of Coordances. Background to this is approximately January 15, 2025, Code Enforcement receives several complaints regarding the appearance of the listed property which is a tire store that stores old tires in view of the public, the property next door is being worked on, and I monitored this location for improvements to next door property improvements. On January 15, 2025, after no improvements observed, I issued a notice of violation and spoke with the tenant regarding the tire issues. Interest student advised to ease working with the owner to resolve the issues. Correction data on that notice of violation was given to February 25th, 2025. However, on January 23rd, 2025, Supervisor Sam McGill met with the tenant and informed and information on how to correct the violation was given on January 24th, 2025, a permit was applied for an eventually issued. March 27thth, 2025, at the direction of San Miguel, Citation 0525, notice of hearing was subsequently issued. It was posted to the property, sent certified milk to the owner, posted at City Hall. The tenant contacted supervisor San Miguel, regarding citation, advised it has been a struggle to get a fence company for the instill. The fence was installed prior to the hearing date. However, the rear of the property was not fenceed in. Cows in the rear neighbors to have a view of the tire stacked in the rear. Officer San Miguel contacted owner and stated the rear would need fenceed in. An additional time frame was given a correct violation before daily fine starts. All notices and provisions of chapter 10 are 28 have been been complied with. Staff recommends special magistrate fine, QOZB2 LLC and violation of section 10, 500 minimum standards. And assist citation fine of $75 and $100 daily fine, if not corrected by, which we gave them up to May 10th, 2025. Okay. And I do not see anybody for the respondent. We will be back in the next second. We will be back in the next second. We will be back in the next second. We will be back in the next second. We will be back in the next second. We will be back in the next second. We will be back in violation of city code section 10-500 city of bed water code of ordinances as listed in the notice of violation filed in this matter. Considering the gravity of the violation and the actions by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations by the violator, I ordered that respondent correct the violation on or before May 10, 2025. In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation. The respondent does not comply with this order, a fine of $100 per day will be imposed. For $100, we'll be imposed for each day the violation continues past May 10th, 2025. The respondent is further ordered to contact the Co-Demforcement Officer or the Co-Demforcement Office for compliance and to arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Next case, case number 25-121951. Yes, the address in question is 2904 Juniper Dry, Robert and Dr. Ingram owner of this property and edgewater Florida has been found in violation of section 10113 and operable vehicle of the city of edgewater photo ordinances. A little background on this is around February 19, 2025 while on patrol observed a black vehicle in the driveway of the listed location without a vehicle registration. During the course of this investigation, it was noted that a dump truck and a black Mustang from this location was observed in the city right away with the same violation. Right away violations were issued, a courtesy violation sticker, and placed on the windows of the vehicles, and a courtesy notice was issued for the vehicle in the driver with the correction date of February 24th, 2025. On February 24th, I conducted an inspection no attempts to correct the violations. It was noted that the courtesy sticker had been removed from the Mustang in the right of way. 48-hour tow notices were left on these vehicles. Subsequently, a notice of violation was issued with the correction data of February 26th, 2025. As this officer believed seven days was sufficient time to remove vehicles from the property. February 26, 2025 another inspection was conducted. It was noted that the Mustang was now out of the city right away in place in the driveway. The black key was still in the driveway without a tag. I spoke with the owner and he advised that he was going to be removed from the property and the Mustang will be placed in the garage. indicated that dump truck as his dad's vehicle and he was not or he was aware of the notices the The owner requested for and was given an extension to correct the violations until March 5th, 2025. On March 5th, 2025, I arrived and noted the violations were not corrected. The key was still in the dry without a registration and the Mustang was now covered with the car cover. Citations 0523 notice of hearing was subsequently issued. Supposed to the property, sent certified mail to the owner and posted it at City Hall. All notices and provisions of chapter 10, article 28 been complied with. Staff recommends a special magistrate find Robert Andrew Ingram, Involution at section 10, 1 1 3 and operable vehicle. An assistive citation fine of $75 and an additional daily fine of $100 is being requested if not corrected by April 20th, 2025. Okay, seeing no one from the respondent here today. Based upon the testimony, evidence presented in case number 25-121-951. I find that responded is in violation of City Code Section 10-113. The City of Edgelwater's Code of Ordinances, as listed in Notice of Violation, filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation, and the actions by the violator to correct the violation, and any previous violations by the violator. I order that correspondant correct the violation on or before April 20th, 2025, in order to correct the violation, respond and shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation. If the respond does not comply with this order, a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past April 20th, 2025. Responding is for the order to contact Code Enforcement Office or a a code enforcement officer for compliance into a range and inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Additionally, the respondent is subject to a citation fine of $75. I'd like to go back to the case that we previously heard of case number 25-121951. Actually, I'm sorry, case number 25-121813. For the order, I failed to mention the respondent is subject to a citation fine of $75. I just want to clarify that. Okay, next case, case number 25-122-008. Okay. All right, spend Thomas, Leshner-Lora, are the property owners located at 3404 in the Palm Drive, Florida. Been been found in violation of Section 1098 property maintenance, so the City of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On March 17th, 2025, Code enforcement received an email from City Employee Dan Whirl, referenced an illegal utilities connection at 3404 India Palm Drive. The email stated the water was disconnected from this location and an employee checked on the 14th of February and discovered a new connection installed. Dernish check was discovered that the property had weeds in excess of 12 inches. No violation was issued with the correction date of March 27th, 2025. March 28th, 2025, a conduct and inspection observed no changes. Citation 0526 notice of hearing was subsequently issued. It's posted to the property sent certified milk to the owners and posted it at City Hall. Excuse me, additionally in abatement was subsequently issued for the property. All notices and provisions of chapter 10, article 28 being complied with. Staff recommends a special magistrate find rights and time and send a lesson or a lower in violation of 1098 section, 1098 property maintenance and assess the citation of $75 Seeing nobody present for the respondent in this matter Basin test money never been presented in case number 25-122 0 0 8 I find that respondents was in violation of city of edge water city code section 10-98. As is in the notice of violation filed in this matter. Based upon the fact that the property is certainly in compliance, there are no daily fines or leans to be assessed. However, the respondent is subject to the citation fine of $75 in this matter. Any questions? No, they're not in compliance. Oh. Were you simply a bank? Yeah, Mr. Knight, just for clarity, they are not in compliance and the city will be Abating the property. We are just requesting an assessment of the $75 citation fee. Okay, so no daily fines are requested at this. Correct, because we will be abating the property. Okay, so to clarify the record, the property is not in compliance. So over there will be no daily fines or leans to be assessed at this time. Yeah, let's think about this. Next up, case number 25-122-051A. There's also a 25-122-051B. I'm assuming we'd want to take these together. Correct. Okay, let's do that. Case 25122051 is actually an extension of 2512208 for the same address of 3404 India Palm Drive owners of the property rights, Mentama, Sleshtner and Laura are the owners of this property. It's been found in violation of Section 194 on lawful connection and Section 1922 tampering with meters in tap of the City of Edgewater's Code of Organises. On March 17, 2025, Code and Force received an email from City Employee Dan Whirl reference to illegal utilities connection at 34 04 in a Palm Drive. Email stated that water meter was removed from this location and a City employee checked on the 14th of February and discovered a new connection installed. Email provided information and photos of the illegal hookup. I responded to this location and observed the possible area for a water connection covered up with fresh dirt. Due to the provided email and photos, citation 0526 notice I'm hearing was subsequently issued with the two violations as posted the property sent certified mail to the owners and posted at City Hall. All notices and provisions to chapter 10 article 20 had been complied with. Staff recommends a special magistrate fine rights meant Thomas and Lesnar Laura and violation of section 19 for lawful connection and section 19 22 tap rain with meters tap and assess the citation find of $300 per violation totaling $600. No daily fines are being requested as the water meter was removed from this location. Which would put this case and compliance. Thank you. Seeing nobody from the respondent present, based upon the testimony and evidence presented in case numbers 25-122-051A and 25-122-051B. I find that the Respondent is in violation of the City of Edge Waters Code of Ordinances section 19-22 and Section 19-4. Consider the gravity of the violation and the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations by the violator. I order that respondent is subject to a citation fee of $300 in case 25-122-051A and subject to the citation fine of $300 in case 25-122-05 P. Fun it shall pay that as indicated on the citation. That is it. Yes, thank you. So the February 13, 2025 minutes of the Co-Inforcement Hearing are approved. Thank you for the reminder. And with that, we'll be adjourned.